Shattered Vow

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

cr, a year or so ago in game time I was short on carriers so I converted all my replenishment CVEs into regular flight decks.  There might have been times when it would be helpful to replenish, but they are rare.  Usually when losses come they are so great that a few CVE VR wouldn't be enough to make good the losses and, by that time, the action is over anyhow.  I'm pleased with the decision, though I think other players could go the other way with excellent results for them.

As far as I know the replenishment CVE system works.  I used it in WitP.

Do you run into problems with the land based VR units mushrooming in size? This was sometimes a problem in WiTP vanilla.

[Canoerebel]

No, nothing like that has happened.  I kept the V fighters aboard the CVEs and transferred the strike aircraft to airfields where they remained the appropriate size.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Which is beside the point. This facet of the command structure of the game is meant to reflect such real life issues.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Have to agree; this is making the exception the rule.

Other factor is I very much doubt (although I could be wrong), that Halsey had orders from higher authority that said "do not under any circumstances leave the transports". Instead he probably had a vague understanding to "execute the mission using reasonable discretion".

If we set the reaction range to zero, that's the equivalent to putting a written order from the joint chief's on Halsey's desk saying "do not, under any circumstances, leave the transports".

The thing with Halsey is he used his discretion badly, not that he disobeyed and explicit order (at least not that I'm aware of).

In this game there is no way to issue any such orders to any kind of TF. They all can make their own decisions. Even the risk tolerance, 'remain on station', etc. settings do not make any of this absolute. part of the philosophy of WITP/AE is the viewpoint of the player's command, which has been maintained even with the contradictions that were added (like managing individual pilots).

I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

[Canoerebel]

11/21/44 and 11/22/44
 
Japanese Air Strikes:  Japanese LBA sortied against both the Allied CV fleet nearing Jolo plus Allied transports in the area.  The aircraft didn't manage anything against the carriers, but did rough up a dozen transports (some of these were damaged ships returning from Hainan Island, others were carrying reinforcements to NW Borneo).  On that note, I just remembered that somebody asked whether Miller has been using kamikazees.  Yes, he has.  However it appears to me that they are appearing in manageable and sporadic numbers.   Most of his effective strikes are conventional.  I don't know whether it's that Miller's just been unlucky in getting them to sortie or whether he for some reason hasn't employed them en masse yet.
 
China:  To my surprise, the American airborne force took Chaochow, the city between Swatow and Amoy.  So now the Allies suddenly have a port city northeast of Hong Kong.  I'm not sure whether I'll try to reinforce by sea due to the risk involved (the area is surrounded by hostile airfields. 
 
Malaya:  The Allied army besieging Victoria Point made some progress, so it looks like this city could fall within a few weeks.
 
Borneo:  I think the Allies have enough troops ashore to take Kudat, the base north of Jesselton.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Don't want to disrupt the aar but Halsey was acting according to his understanding of his orders. Prior to the op Halsey specifically asked if his priority was destruction of the enemy or protection of the transports and was told the former. This was in direct response to a feeling amongst some USN commanders that Spruance had made a mistake at Phillipine Seas (had Spruance prioritized on the cvtfs in the transports, there may not have been a decoy available to lure Halsey later). Technically, Kinkaid was responsible for close support so he should have been covering both straights. The biggest failure was by Nimitz who failed to name one naval commander for the operation or, in lieu of that, be responsible for maintaining the coordination between both fleets. I think Nimitz realized that and that was one of the major reasons that Halsey didn't get canned. Don't take any of the above to mean that I think that Halsey didn't make numerous mistakes during the battle.

[witpqs]

It was understood that Halsey was guarding the North Strait. It was not understood to be Kinkaid's job to guard them both.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs


I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs


I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

That's what I meant - the designer intended for less than ironclad command certainty for the player.

For many things 'faithfully do what the setting says' does not come against any design decision. But 'carrier react = 0 means react sometimes depending...' is the kind of thing they have said in the past is 'as designed'. They mentioned there were some things that they checked with Grigsby on. Perhaps that was one of them. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge we are stuck with it.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, witpqs. It helps to know that the issue has been long since addressed by the designer, who it turns out wanted the feature included, and that the matter is closed. I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs


I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

That's what I meant - the designer intended for less than ironclad command certainty for the player.

For many things 'faithfully do what the setting says' does not come against any design decision. But 'carrier react = 0 means react sometimes depending...' is the kind of thing they have said in the past is 'as designed'. They mentioned there were some things that they checked with Grigsby on. Perhaps that was one of them. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge we are stuck with it.

if so, then a react of 1 should be 1 or 0, a react of 2 should be 2 or 1 or 0,

NOT, 0 = anything , 1 = anything, 2 = anything.

GG had some great ideas, most of them needed tweaking.

Now Dan, back to the war.......

[Canoerebel]

11/23/44 and 11/24/44
 
Quiet everywhere except where the Allies wished to make noise, so two more good days for the Allies:

Vietnam:  The British army took Vinh, mauling the garrison.  This opens the door to the Hanoi, so most of the British (and Indian) units will move north to besiege Hanoi.  As soon as they arrive, the combined American/Chinese army just north of Hanoi will move south and join in the siege.  I don't imagine Hanoi can hold long.  Once it falls, the Allies have an open road between Burma/Thailand and China.

China:  Allies units are fanning out with the next clashes to take place at Nanning and Kulako.  Nothing's positive yet, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Allies will be able to drive to the coast, bypassing Canton and Hong Kong.  This is and has been the chief objective - to seize bases with big-potential airfields to permit strategic bombing.

Borneo:  The Allies easily took Kudat and will now move to adjacent Jesselton.

Carriers:  The Allied fleet carriers arrived at Balikpan where a large replenishment convoy awaited.  As soon as the carriers are gassed up and make good replacements of lost aircraft, the carriers will return to their battle stations somewhere in the vicinity of Luzon or the South China Sea.

Points:  The Japanese lead is under 4,000 points now (but it's still noteworthy that Miller has the lead; a tip of the cap to him).  However, it's beginning to look to me like this offensive has "broken" Japan's back.  It took long enough, there will be tough fighting ahead, and it will take a long time for the Allies to achieve a 2:1 lead in points (assuming the cause doesn't because so hopeless beforehand that Miller concedes).  Nevertheless, the Allies have broken through and acheived a position from which the end-game can be waged. 

[Bullwinkle58]

I know you aren't primarily playing for VPs, but your situaiton is interesting. Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing a lot of juicy VP tanks aren't available to you. He doesn't have that many high VP ships left for you to sink. Your aircraft exchange rates--unless he starts throwing mass kamis at you--aren't skewed enough to make up many thousands of points.

So you're left with bases and troops (and strat damage, a different problem.) There are several big VP bases at your relative fingertips, but a lot aren't that close either. Lopsided troop casualty VPs might be your best source of ready points, so your movements might need to be enveloping rather than frontal confrontations. Forcing him back east does net you a lot of casualties if the IJA is out of supply and routing, but not as many as compete destruction. Routes like the Malay peninsula are good for high VP bases, but also the sometimes scores of LCUs you can utterly destroy at the tip in Singapore.

He might be looking at base hex VPs and designing his defenses to deny you those. You can get into a slugging match, which you'll win if you get enough supplies in, or you can run a maneuver war and snipe up the 20- and 30-VP bases all over the place at once. An interesting time-distance problem. But you can be more places at once than he can (even a lot of your late-war base forces can take unoccupied bases alone), and you now have immense-range recon assets to tell you where he isn't.

[JohnDillworth]

Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing

One wonders how much a of garrison is left on any of the mid pacific islands. a single Marine division might be able to make a road trip picking up a bunch of bases with little prep. Half a chance many of these are completely stripped

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing

One wonders how much a of garrison is left on any of the mid pacific islands. a single Marine division might be able to make a road trip picking up a bunch of bases with little prep. Half a chance many of these are completely stripped

Probably worth doing some recon at least. Some of those beasts, like Saipan and Iwo, have CD and forts enough to be a problem even with minimal garrisons, but there are probably some cherries to be picked. Wake, Marcus, Ocean, and Ponape for starters.

[Canoerebel]

I suspect that Miller will concede once the cause becomes utterly hopeless.
 
If he continues to grind it out and it becomes clear there won't be a concession unless and until the Allies achieve a 2:1 auto-victory, I would do things this way:
 
1.  Strategic bombing:  alot of points to be scored.
2.  Tidying up the map:  Singapore and some of the other bases in the DEI and SEAC are worth alot of points and they also have stout garrisons.  The Allies would pick up alot of points here.
3.  Moving forward:  The Allies would aim for Manila and some of the CenPac bases (as you guys suggest)
4.  China:  Trying to encircle and destroy as many troops as possible
5.  Hunting down carriers and transports:  Miller still has a fair number of CVs and a host of transports, so the Allies would try to pick these off.
 
But strategic bombing is the quickest and easiest way to both score points and wear out Japan to the point that Miller throws in the towel.

[JohnDillworth]

What is the experience level of your bomber pilots? the B-29's come in pretty low. You get hundreds of them, but you will lose alot of these through operations and if your experience level is low you will lose plenty of the HI

[Canoerebel]

Well, my B-29 pilots aren't anything to boast about.  Most arrived with experience in the upper 40s and some are now in the mid 50s.  I'm fiddiling around with the training command feature and I seem to have a decent reserve of high-experience bomber pilots, but I just had to draw some for my carrier TBM squadrons because their pilots had experience of 27 (!!!!!).

[JohnDillworth]

I think the pools are different.TBM should be Navy, you need Army. you might want to start cashing out some of your B-25 & B-24 guys. go to the squadrons, list the pilots and right click twice on the good ones (first click puts them into the group reserve, second one puts them in the general reserve). Within a week or 2 they will show up in the general reserve. You can then "request veteran" from you B-29's squadrons and pick from the reserve. Send the clunkers already in your B-29 groups home. Don't forget to back fill the B-25, & B-24 groups and start training them at 100%. Kind of late in the game but it can't hurt. I hate pilot training too but it is a necessary evil in the game.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

What is the experience level of your bomber pilots? the B-29's come in pretty low. You get hundreds of them, but you will lose alot of these through operations and if your experience level is low you will lose plenty of the HI

John,

He can just pull pilots out of the liberator squadrons. They should be pretty experienced by now, then rotate the lesser pilots into the B24s. Or for that matter, he can pull them out of the mediums if they have not been kicked around too much.